Well, that rules out just returning envelopes marked "not at this address" - but I'm pretty sure that's not how he was traced - unless he's still very local to his previous known address. I think just continuing to ignore anything that isn't official is probably best for now - and CSL will probably get bored and return it to LLoyds. How long is it since any payment made to this account - so we know how long before the debt is SB (6 years from last payment in or acknowledgement of the debt in writing)?

DD OK I see Indi had added another sentence which isn't needed and where the personal account was mentioned - and go along with your suggestion 99% - but shouldn't it be alleged transfer? BD PS - If you've been catching up with old Morecambe and Wise shows over Christmas you should know the correct sentence is "wot I rote" "rit" is wot gets served - sometimes accompanied by large chips (borne on shoulders).

I agree with DD's comments - but alos wonder - should you actually say "claimant's personal bank account"? Why not just say "claimant's bank account"? By specifying the personal account you might give her some wriggle room - They might just reply to nthe court saying " the funds didn't come from a personal but from a business account - so no point asking for personal account transactions" . Also why not say "alleged transactions from the claimant's bank account" - to reinforce the fact you are denying that funds totalling £23k came from it? BD

What about him being registered for Council Tax or Voters Roll at your address? BD

Cab Well done! It makes my blood boil when so called professionals bend the truth - and try to hoodwink the general public like that! It will be interesting to see what they do next? BD

Angel If it were me I wouldn't ask for any costs today - as you may want to agree a "drop hands" later - where each side pays its own costs? I would prepare an I&E so you can perhaps get the judge to agree to time to pay if you do lose today - but ensure you keep this well hidden - and don't show any sign of weakness too early. This is what I think - but I've not yet had to get to the court stage and would welcome other views too for you to consider. Good luck! BD

I'm all in favour of continuing to ignore DCA's for as long as possible - and usually they go away and return the account to the OC. However sometimes the OC does instruct them to go to Court. It's really a judgement call as to if/when they will do so. I set up another thread where I'm trying to build up a pictiure of how specific DCA's are likely to act - based on past experiences. Here's a link so you can see what I've got there so far. http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?227592-How-ready-are-various-DCA-s-or-Original-Creditors-to-go-to-Court&p=2520642&viewfull=1#post2520642 I've just sent the following letter to one DCA who just won't go away - and claims to have bought the debt and has traced me after 2-3 years of writing to an out of date address. I'm still awaiting a reply - but I only sent this a couple of weeks ago. If CSL are not going to go away - and if they now know for certain (through Voters Roll, Council Tax, CRA's etc.) that your partner lives with you it might be time to send a letter along these lines (suitably modified to suit his own circumstances)? What do others think? If they just won't go away the I think the key thing now is to flush out what enforceable paperwork (if any) they have. If there is no evidence from Voters Roll, Council Tax, Bank statements etc. that he does live with you - and especially if he also has another potentially available address where he could live (parents?) - or if he's still on a voters roll etc. elsewhere - then if you can now recognise the envelopes (from franking on front or return address on back) it might be worth just sending further ones back marked "not at this address". However this might be risky and come back to bite him. I'd like to see what other CAGGERS say about this approach? I did it and it did buy me some time - but it's not without its risks if these returned envelopes were used in court. If you don't want to bluff by returning envelopes and they can now prove he lives with you it might be worth your partner seeing just exactly what they have on him (if anything) by sending a modified version of the following letter: Hope this helps? BD Dear Sirs Ref:− Your letter of XX January 2011. Your Ref xxxxxxxxxxxx I do not acknowledge any debt to your company I refer to your letter dated dd/mm/yy and now formally request, under the Consumer Protection From Unfair Trading Regulations 2008 (specifically regulations 5 and 6) and the Office of Fair Trading Guidance on debt collection that you confirm whether you currently hold or have ever held a properly Executed Credit Agreement pertaining to the above account and if so please forward a copy to me by return. If YOU DO NOT have a signed, properly executed Consumer Credit Act Agreement pertaining to myself, then I require written confirmation by return (CPUTR 2008 reg 5 and 6). I understand that under the Consumer Credit Act, creditors are unable to enforce an agreement if they fail to comply with such a request. Also, since you are a Debt Collection Agency, I would also ask that you supply a signed true copy of the executed deed of assignment for the above referenced agreement. This is an obligation, whether you are the original creditor or not, under section 189 of the Consumer Credit Act 1974. Non-compliance with my request is a criminal offence under the above Act and will result in a report being submitted to the relevant statutory authorities. In summary, I DO NOT ACKNOWLEDGE THIS DEBT AND THEREFORE REQUIRE YOU TO SUBSTANTIATE THIS BY PROVIDING THE FOLLOWING DOCUMENTATION BEFORE I CORRESPOND FURTHER : 1.True copy of original credit agreement 2.Statement of account 3.Copy of the executed deed of assignment from the original creditor 4.Fair Processing Notice. As you are aware, a credit agreement that is not properly documented and signed by the customer is totally unenforceable under the CCA and therefore is a complete defence to any court claim that is issued. Take note at this stage, that any legal action you may contemplate will be both vigorously defended and contested. Further to the above, please ensure that any contact by yourselves or any agent or associated company or organisation is made in writing only to the above address or by e-mail. Telephone calls and personal visits will not be accepted and viewed as harassment. As this account is now in dispute, I would also draw your attention to The Banking Code section 13.6:- We may give information to the Credit Reference Agencies about personal debts you owe us if: ·The Amount Owed is Not in Dispute. The Office of Fair Trading provided a Code of Guidance that is in relation to Debt Collection: OFT 664 Response to consultation paper and final guidance on unfair business practices dated July 2003 Deceptive and/or Unfair Methods- 2.8 Examples of unfair practices are as follows:- k. Not ceasing collection activity whilst investigating a reasonably queried or disputed debt. If you continue in your pursuance of this account I will have no other alternative than to report you to both The Information Commissioner and The Office of Fair Trading (OFT). Furthermore, I shall submit a Consumer Credit Act 1974 complaint to the OFT upon the basis that you have failed to comply with the OFT's direction of 5 April 2006 and are therefore not a 'fit and proper person' to hold a consumer credit licence under the 1974 Act. If you do not understand what this means then I would recommend you seek appropriate independent legal advice. Yours faithfully

Angel Very best of luck today! Your experience of how they lie and cheat on the phone is a salutory example of why CAG always advises - EVERYTHING IN WRITING! They have NO morals or integrity - as your case illustrates only too clearly. Sock it to 'em today! I'll be looking in later today to see how you got on. BD

Interesting they are giving you ADVICE now? Are they qualified Independent Financial Advisers authorised and regulated by FSA? I doubt it! Keep the letters (and envelopes) safe in case you need to play this card later - but keep cards close to your chest for now and continue to ignore them. I bet CSL will eventually hand the account back to M&S. Hope this helps? BD

W. Good letter - just two points. 1. Interesting they talk about Blair Oliver &Scott as solicitors - as I have had MANY letters from them and their own letter heads do NOT refer to themselves as such. I suspect they are the inhouse DCA for HBOS - same initials (BOS) and their office is in Rosyth a few miles from HBOS Visa Head office in Dunfermline. Sainsbury's finances are actually through HBOS. Ensure you keep these letters safe as they are probably misrepresenting Blair Orrible etc. - possibly contravening OFT debt collection guidelines. 2. I would ask them if the unsealed and clearly visible purpose or contents of envelopes from Albion contravene the Data Protection Act. BD

Dean Just re-read your very first post. As you say, the sale price seems VERY low! It might be worth getting data of what happened to prices for that type of property in that area between date of purchase and sale - as it looks as if they didn't try too hard to mitigate any loss! Also did Halifax or BOS have any other dealings with your partner - so they would have been aware of changes to her address? If so, they have been very negligent in keeping her informed of the situation. They could also have tracked her down via the various CRA's. This is certainly one worth fighting - and if they realise the most they can get is 50% of the outstanding debt (due to her ex's bankruptcy ) - and even that is in doubt if they haven't done everything properly, they may well just walk away. Am I right in assuming they are claiming £8k (£22.1k - £14.1k sale proceeds) and not the full £22.1k? If so, if you get them to agree 50% is written off, and they DON't just walk away, then it is a Small Claims issue - so minimum risk of court costs if you defend. As I said, it's certainly worth getting some legal advice - and insisting on seeing the original signed and witnessed mortgage agreement. BD

I think they will need the signed witnessed mortgae agreement to enforce - but you should contact a lawyer for proper advice. Have they sent you a mortgage statement showing all payments? If so, when was the last payment? What happened at Court on 30 November? BD

My feeling is he told her to drop it - and he might even have declined to represent her in court (to avoid looking a fool in front of colleagues!) But as you say - no counting chickens just yet! Although nothing to stop us savouring the sweet smell of a Bernard Matthews finest - freshly roasted! BD

TS are a bit like most public "servants" (NHS excepted!). Many feel that since they will still get paid for doing nothing then why should they put themselves out? I find you have to let them see it will be harder NOT to help you than to help you - as you simply won't just "go away" - so they might as well do the work they're paid to do. If you get no help at first ask how you escalate the matter and what their own complaints procedure is. That usually gets their *rse into gear! Please keep us posted - but I doubt if your builder will actually follow through with any REAL court action. BD

I think the OC might have had it. I'm also a bit suspicious it might have come from my office as they were ringing there (and this line is put through to an out of hours engineer after 17:30 and at weekends who might have just passed my number on quite innocently). In any case I told them however they got hold of my number was illegal and against Data Protection Act. No more calls since then! BD

I agree. If no furthe rcontact then send the next £1 and thank them for agreeing to freeze all interest and charges and accept these toklen payment. NB - Put in a paragraph like "Please only bank this cheque if you ARE accepting my proposal. If you are NOT accepting my proposal and the last cheque was banked in error please advise by return and also return all such payments taken by you in error along with your counter proposals for my consideration. " If you force them away from their computer generated letters into having to think up a specific response then you're more likely to get an acceptance - since you're becoming too much of a hassle for them. BD

Wilchil, Vic, Needa (and others who might drop by) I have put together the attached letter based on several other letters or posts on various threads. I think it covers all bases when dealing with nuisance DCA's. Feel free to use all or part of it to suit your own circumstances. I just sent it off a few days ago - and the phone calls stopped when I told them I had written to them formally to complain of telephone harassment and was logging and recording all further calls. http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?281567-Cabot-Harrassemnt-Please-help&p=3265953&viewfull=1#post3265953 Hope this helps? BD

V Good tactics! Depending on how much they're chasing (and their share of any payments made) they might take the view you're not worth the hassle and pass you back to the OC PDQ. BD

I'm not at all scary! The last birthday card I got from my wife said "Although you've mellowed (like a good wine) as the years roll by, you've still kept your looks ". Then inside it said "Still the same glares, scowls and frowns - just better hidden by the wrinkles". :lol:BD

Wilchil I agree with Vic. If they're offering £250 they must be scared (although they may just want to avoid FOS getting involved as it will cost them double this if you involve FOS!). I would write back telling them you are still not satisfied with their conduct of your account (don't mention the £250 at all- if they send it then bank it and later write saying this is not a settlement as your procedure is to separate all cheques, bank them and then deal with attached correspondence later:madgrin: - goose and gander!) Also tell them if they cannot handle individual accounts by post they must change their systems so that they can - since anyone can withdraw their right to contact them by phone or by doorstep visit. If they now admit their threat of a door step visit was empty then they contravene OFT guidelines on Debt Collection (easily got on Google). Tell 'em that too! Also tell them they need to change their system regarding banking cheques which are only offered on a conditional basis. Warn them there is ample CASE LAW supporting your contention that in banking these cheques (especially in repeatedly doing so) they HAVE accepted your accompanying conditions. Ask them to clarify WHY Albion are now chasing you when their letter says they have not yet put it out to DCA's? Tell them you want a FINAL RESPONSE and you'll involve FOS if not satisfied. I take it you did give them the abbreviated F&F recently? If not then send it now. In fact send it again in case this is now enough to get them to play ball. Copy CEO on all of this. Write to Albion telling them you are in direct contact with Sainsbury CEO and you will NOT deal with them UNLESS they send you written proof of their status in this situation, including (but not limited to) a Notice of Assignment which conforms with provisions of Law of Property Act 1925. Go get 'em Gal! BD

I agree - report him to Trading Standards - also why not ring your local court as well? You could say you just want to clarify if this is a formal court document - or has no legal standing. I think they'll take a dim view of their forms being misrepresented in this way. Once you have your answer, leave it to TS or the Courts to pull him up - and ignore anything else that he produces unless it is a formal legal document. As others have said too - he's a chancer - and needs to get his come uppance - but life's too short for you to get all hot and bothered about him if he's just blowing hot air. BD

Carningli The very existence of this thread - and current actions in Scotland- show WE ARE NOT going to take this lying down. The fight is still on - at least up here. BD

I would start a new thread an dput a link on to this one. But some basics first. 1. Did you get a written quote for original work? Was it very detailed -i.e. Did it definitely include or NOT include the subsequent work? 2. If it included the extra work - i.e. it was definitely required to be done as part of original quote then defend and don't pay a penny. If the extra invoice is definitely for EXTRA (i.e. not originally quoted) work then see below. 3. Did you pay the full amount of the original estimate and get a receipt? Was this paid BEFORE or after the extra work was agreed to be done - or was actually done? 4. Was ANY additional charge discussed for the additional work? If he gave you a written quopte for the first work and not for teh second then it weakens his case that the second work was chargeable - but really depends on the scope of this extra work whether his claim for extra payment is credible or not. 5. How much extra work was done - relative to the first work done and paid for? 6. How much have you paid and how much is now claimed? 7. Have you any way of estimating what would be a fair charge - materials and labour - for the extra (if actually extra) work compared to the original work. 8. If you want to avoid court, and extra work was actually done, I would make an offer to pay the proportionate amount based on 5 above in F&F settlement. 9. If you can't estimate the value of the extra compared to the original work, I would suggest offering to go to arbitration where an independent building surveyor reviews the extra work and suggests a figure to be paid for it. Both parties would need to be bound the findings. 10. If you feel strongly that the extra work should be done FOC (a difficult thing ever to justify in an arms length business relationship - unless it should clearly have been done as part of original quote) then I would defend. Costs at Small Claims are small - so minor risk - and in the absence of a written estimate you might just win on the basis that the work was to be done at no additional charge. 11. You could perhaps raise a counter claim for the poor quality of the work done - but then why did you pay the full whack and even get the guy to do more if you were not happy with the original finished standard? 12. Quite often small businesses raise these claims hoping the customer will get scared and pay up. If you defend he might just walk away. 13. In any case a small claims hearing is not that serious or costly and even if you lose, provided you pay him promptly then there will b no black mark against your credit rating etc. Good luck! BD

I suspect that since by Nov 2009 we now owned 73% of RBS and 41% of LTSB/HBOS that OFT would have been told that any more involvement by them would actually be the Government suing itself - so back off PDQ! This could also explain many creditor-frioendly perverse judgments (like Brandon) made recently! BD

Cupcake If you want I can PM you the letter I used - for you to take any bits out you think might help you? BD